Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
But in the United States, our political system does not even make food, shelter and clothing fundamental citizen (let alone human) rights. So where does anyone get off suggesting Congress or the FCC should declare that the Internet is something more important than the reality of basic human needs? This is a completely bogus debate and the “study” — an opinion poll, no less — is just irrelevant. Later I’ll tell you how I _really_ feel. 😉
In my view, the second sentence here is the most important. If one posts material viewable by the entire world, the author implicitly licenses anyone to use the content-—in other words, no copyright applies, and the author does not “own” his or her user-generated content. The necessary corollary is that when the whole world can see your stuff, the government does not need permission, let alone a warrant, to look too.
Privacy law was largely created in the pre-Internet age, and new rules are needed to keep up with the ways people communicate today. Much of what occurs online, like blog posting, is intended to be an open declaration to the world, and law enforcement is within its rights to read and act on what is written. Other kinds of communication, particularly in a closed network, may come with an expectation of privacy. If government agents are joining social networks under false pretenses to spy without a court order, for example, that might be crossing a line.
Of course, where a social network allows users to restrict access, to friends or followers, the opposite conclusion holds. For instance, unless Facebook wall posts are made available to “everyone” in the user’s privacy settings, then there remain both legitimate ownership and privacy interests, such that the government can’t monitor that content without both probable cause and a warrant.
It is hardly surprising that as digital video recorders (DVRs) become more ubiquitous, their basic function (i.e., automatic time shifting of television shows) is rapidly becoming commoditized. When TiVO was introduced in 1999 it revolutionized TV by giving users control of what they watched, when they want to watch. So as that feature spread to other devices—and especially once DirecTV stopped licensing TiVo technology for its set-top boxes—it is only natural that pundits would begin declaring the death of TiVO. Can TiVo Reinvent Itself in Time? [paidContent].
But TiVO has never been a simple DVR device, Coupled with a smart filters, custom recommendations and a sophisticated “season pass” feature, TiVO offers to consumers a software-based platform for customizing the television experience, while it simultaneously offers advertisers and broadcasters a tremendous wealth of valuable data on viewing habits. Moving into the next decade, it is this information aggregation function that promises to be the value proposition for the business going forward.
With its highly intuitive and user-friendly software, TIVO is better-positioned than anyone else to help users sift through and manage “infinite choice” in the same way Google has made the Web itself searchable. Recording linear TV for later playback will continue to have its place, but as more Internet-delivered video comes to television screens, TiVO will be the front-end portal through which subscribers access TV, video-on-demand, broadband content, interactive services and advertising.
To me, this says that TiVO’s biggest competitor is not stand-alone DVR machines, but rather the advent of on-demand video devices like Netflix-enabled Blu-ray players, Roku boxes and AppleTV. The biggest question is whether the need for local storage of videos, whether on a PC or DVR, will survive the transition to Web-enabled streaming video. As sites like Clicker.com make Internet video fully searchable, is there enough value-added with TiVO to convince consumers to continue to buy a hardware device in order to get access to software?
Prediction: Within five years, the market will see TiVO-branded software for multiple operating systems, leveraging the company’s technological superiority in a way that Hulu and the like have not as yet even tried to match.
I am waiting, ostensibly patiently, for arrival of the complete collection of The Beatles music on newly remastered digital CDs. It is a little odd, though, since the group pioneered so many innovative recoding techniques in the analog realm. This performance of Revolution from U.S. television will have to do for now.
The Australian company uSocial is selling Facebook friends to corporate customers for marketing and advertising purposes. Not enough Facebook friends? Buy them [Reuters]. Now I agree that it can be difficult for brick-and-mortar businesses to generate a loyal online social media following. But that really is no excuse for transforming the truly social act of “friending” someone into a purely monetized, commercial relationship. To the contrary, Facebook’s advertising platform allows sponsors to target the audience they are looking for whether or not the individuals have “friended” the company.
Can't Buy Me Love
So the purpose of buying friends — which, to be fair, is really buying leads, because uSocial cannot guaranty that the members contacted will accept friend requests for its clients — is rather to inflate the perception of the company’s brand as socially popular. Want 5,000 More Facebook Friends? That’ll Be $654.30. Advertising audience is really secondary. That makes it not that much different from what goes on with grocery store shelf space, movie reviews and the like. It just is an order of magnitude more unseemly to do it in the context of a consensual social media setting.
Years ago (and soon again thanks to Beatles Rock Band), The Beatles sang that “money can’t buy me love.” Well, it is a sad reflection on where we’ve come as a society that, in the 21st century, money can buy you friends.
Who owns user generated content (UGC) posted to social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and the like? How has or will the law evolve to deal with the different, and sometimes unique, modes of personal interaction (with others and with information) made possible by social networking technologies? These are just a few of the legal issues presented by the emergence of social media, one of the fastest growing — and most addictive — forms of Internet-based communication in the relatively brief history of the medium.
1. It Depends
Before diving into the answers, a few words of caution, however. The law evolves slowly and rarely keeps up with technology. Legislation typically solves problems from the PAST decade, not the ones facing Web site operators, users, content providers and ISPs in the immediate future. So if readers believe you can wait for the U.S. Congress (or even state legislatures) to solve the legal status of social media, that is myopic. Far more likely is repetition of the pattern exhibited over the past 15 years with respect to a variety of Internet issues, from spam to judicial jurisdiction. A rather long, and not altogether satisfying, process of applying legacy legal rules to a new technology, progressing in fits and starts and formed principally in the cauldron of litigation.
That is not the optimal way to establish law or policy, but it remains the default in any legal system, including the United States, where citizens have recourse to both a legal code (statutes) and judge-made law (common law). Disputes must be resolved even where, as is all too typical, the statute-writers have not yet dared to tread. The consequences for “social media law” are enormous. While hundreds of millions of Internet users post content to and exchange messages and information via social media on a daily basis, the legal rights, duties and status of that information remain essentially unformed. It is a common impression that lawyers always answer questions with “It depends,” but for social media, those answers are 100% correct. Any effort to compile “the law” of social media — including this essay — is in reality a prediction of how courts will decide cases brought before them. It’s an educated guess, at best.
Social media is unique in some ways (one-to-many, public sharing, etc.), but in other ways is just new communications forum — old wine in new bottles, as the old legal (and biblical) saying goes. Witness St. Louis Cardinals’ baseball manager Tony Larussa’s lawsuit versus Twitter, based on an allegation of so-called “cybersquatting” arising from use of LaRussa’s name as a Twitter “handle” by another subscriber, or criminal prosecution based on “cyberbullying” on MySpace or making assault and murder threats on Twitter.
In May, authorities in Guatemala arrested and charged a man after he sent a 96-character tweet urging depositors to withdraw funds from a bank involved in a political-murder scandal. As Associated Press reports (via USA Today), the message earned him the dubious distinction of becoming one of the first people ever to be arrested for a tweet.
How Much Trouble Can One Tweet Cause?. These are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg but illustrate that the law develops by analogy, applying to new situations the traditional rules applicable to similar circumstances. It hardly matters that LaRussa’s lawsuit, for instance, was not controlled by the federal statute making fraudulent or bad faith domain name registration unlawful (15 U.S.C. 1125(d)) where the domain infringes a trademark. He was still permitted to bring a lawsuit claiming that Twitter’s “misappropriation” of his name as an Internet identifier violated his rights. That the suit ultimately was dismissed before a decision is far less important than that the issue was raised, for the first time, in the context of a judicial dispute.
All of this suggests informed observers should regard pronouncement of social media law as tentative. The traditional rules applicable to social interactions may apply, or may apply differently, in the context of social media. In other respects, social media may upend traditional notions of legal status and privacy. And with the increasing penetration and popularity of location-based services, which can make one’s physical presence a matter of public record, as well as a commercial commodity, the disruptive impact of social media will likely extend to the law itself.
In Part II of this series of essays, we explore the impact of social media on intellectual property law, focusing on copyright (and then trademark).
Last evening’s total solar eclipse, the longest eclipse we will witness in all of the 21st century, was a little disappointing for some of the hundreds of thousands of Asian viewers in China and India due to intermittent cloud cover. But it was even more of a disappointment for Web users. Although there were many sites dedicated to streaming live video of the celestial event, Internet traffic overwhelmed most of the servers. People ”had the most difficult time accessing the live Web coverage in the United States due to high demand,” making what could have been a transformative moment for the Internet into a reality-check of IP technology.
2009 Total Solar Eclipse
The unfortunate lesson is that the Net is still not ready for prime time. Here in Northern Virginia, my Internet connection is rated at 5MB downstream, but despite numerous attempts I was unable to load even one live stream of the eclipse. Perhaps it was a local network issue. More likely, the traffic load from millions of HTTP requests locked out all but a relative handful of potential viewers. Meaning that as a mass medium, today’s Internet is still a failure. We’ve got a ways to go before the Internet can replace traditional media. That’s a sad truth, since other recent news events — from Michael Jackson’s death to the U.S. Airways crash in the Hudson River for instance — foretold a sea-change in substitution of the Web for legacy news outlets.
As Mike Madden writes today in Salon, of course “social media is documenting the Iranian revolution — not leading it.” But that still requires media exposure, coordination and communication, all of which Twitter supplies in spades. No, social media will not bring down Ahmadinejad, the Iranian people can only do that. Imagine if Tom Paine in 1775 or Cory Aquino in 1987 had the one-to-many power of social networking communication instead of pamphlets and radio. Just as “Internet time” speeds up the old world, so too does social media — whether China, Iran or otherwise — provide a new and powerful tool for political revolution.